Christopher D. Hodge v. State of Tennessee, W2016-00892-CCA-R3-PC

In May 2002, inmate Christopher D. Hodge was convicted of second-degree murder for the strangulation death of his cellmate, Ricky Ardd; jury rejected Hodge’s claim of self-defense and returned a 35-year sentence.
Autopsy testimony attributed death to ligature strangulation; a torn strip of bedding attached to a plastic fork was recovered from the cell and described as consistent with a ligature by the medical examiner, though he could not say with certainty it was the killing instrument.
Hodge testified he used a sleeper hold repeatedly and claimed he only intended to render the victim unconscious; the medical examiner testified a sleeper hold could render unconscious in ~15 seconds but death by hypoxia requires a longer period (~4 minutes).
Hodge previously sought post-conviction relief raising ineffective assistance for failure to obtain independent forensic testing; that claim was denied because counsel reasonably did not anticipate Dr. Smith identifying the bedding as a possible murder weapon.
In December 2015 Hodge petitioned under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act for DNA testing of the bedding/fork; the trial court denied the request, finding testing would not be conclusive or create a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

Issue	Hodge's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether mandatory DNA testing under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-304 is required for the bedding/fork	Absence of Hodge or victim DNA on the ligature would show it could not have been the murder weapon and thus undermine conviction	Dr. Smith did not definitively identify the bedding as the murder weapon; testing could either incriminate Hodge or be inconclusive and would not prove innocence	Denied — Hodge did not show that exculpatory DNA results would have prevented prosecution or conviction under § 40-30-304
Whether discretionary testing under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-305 would render verdict/sentence more favorable	Lack of DNA on the bedding would support Hodge's sleeper-hold theory and could have produced a more favorable verdict	Given medical evidence attributing death to ligature and that the examiner found injuries consistent with the bedding, DNA results would not create a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome	Denied — DNA testing would not reasonably have rendered the verdict or sentence more favorable under § 40-30-305

Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011) (courts must presume DNA results would be favorable to petitioner when assessing Post-Conviction DNA Act claims)